Obama’s Remarks on NSA Controversy

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-obama-said-on-nsa-controversy/?mod=e2tw

by dshankar • 13 years ago

140 164 13 years ago

blogs.wsj.com

monsterix• 13 years ago

Thank you for posting this dshankar.

Is this an impromptu speech? Why is he mumbling so much?

cleverjake• 13 years ago

It isn't a speech - its a reply to a question.

smackfu3• 13 years ago

Well, I would call it a prepared response to an inevitable question, at an unrelated event that was already scheduled.

tmzt• 13 years ago

I'm trying to understand one thing: what is the difference between a telephone number and a name?

This is Penn register information, that is what it's referred to as in public laws.

In aggregate it can be used to draw connections between people, such as people talking to those who are committed to doing us harm. That is what public comments on these programs have said and that is true.

But clearly telephone numbers are identifying information, unless they are hashing them prior to building their graphs, but if that is the case why not say that?

His speech also conflates "federal courts", with "FISA court", which implies review by the independent judicial branch.

natrius4• 13 years ago

He also glosses over the fact that cell tower location is included in this data. Most of the information that they would overhear in the actual call audio can be deduced from the data they're collecting. Which is kind of the whole point of the program.

anigbrowl7• 13 years ago

So if I call you from outside 123 Main Street, Anytown on Tuesday at 6:37pm, what are we talking about? Even if one of us is known criminal or terrorist, the fact that conversation took place is merely suspicious rather than probative.

jpdoctor• 13 years ago

And the reason that’s not how it works is because we’ve got congressional oversight and judicial oversight. And if people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress and don’t trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.

Oh thank god, all branches are providing oversight. So it's just as harmless as all those other programs being overseen by all branches of government.

Like TSA.

mikeash2• 13 years ago

Funny how that works. Apparently we can't trust the executive branch, Congress, or federal judges to make sure they're abiding by the Constitution, and we do have some problems here.

boot• 13 years ago

I love how he says several times "we aren't listening to your phone calls". As if that suddenly makes everything better. Fuck me.

coldtea3• 13 years ago

Or as if that makes it true.

Wasn't there reports that warrantless wiretapping is widespread?

They may not be listening to everybody's "phone calls", but how about activists, dissidents, whistleblowers, etc phone calls? How about people active in grassroots campaigns, from OWS to ecology, etc? How about people that work at EFF? What about journalists that are preparing a government corruption story, etc?

Heck, they had files one mile long for people like ...John Lennon and MLK, back in the sixties/seventies.

sinnerswing• 13 years ago

Or he's just going to plead ignorance and maintain plausible deniability.

DerekAlia• 13 years ago

But he is right, somebody isn't listening to it as you say it. Its just being saved in a HUGE database so when they decided you did something wrong that can be used against you.

baddox4• 13 years ago

It gets worse. Moments later, he says:

"if anybody in government wanted to go further than just that top-line data and wanted to, for example, listen to Jackie Calmes’s phone call, they’d have to go back to a federal judge and — and — and indicate why, in fact, they were doing further — further probing."

Great. So they can't listen to your phone call, unless they indicate why they want to listen to your phone call. I'm sure everyone involved in this program was cherry-picked to ensure that no one says "no" to any of these requests. Oh, and I'm sure all the logs (who asked who for permission, what the reasons were, which requests were granted or denied, etc.) are also conveniently "classified," which you should remember is different than "secret."

deelowe• 13 years ago

They aren't listening. They are just recording them in case they want to listen later. Ohh, and they are listening... sometimes, like when there's a court order. Heck, I spoke with someone personally who used to work in one of their call screening centers. They sat in front of a computer all day and flagged snippets of calls, emails, and text that met certain requirements(e.g. words that would indicate a planned terrorist activity). It wasn't clear whether this was applied only to foreign or foreign and domestic conversations. Though most conversations were in english with a native accent.

justncase802• 13 years ago

According to the report they don't listen the voice of the calls, only the "metadata" such as the numbers the calls are made from and to, and when.

sliverstorm4• 13 years ago

As if that suddenly makes everything better

Well, it does seem like most folks are primarily concerned that they will be listening to your phone calls. So maybe it doesn't make you feel better, but maybe it wasn't targeted at you.

(I know, as if that makes anything better!)

varjag2• 13 years ago

The limiting factor here really is the lack of computational power to listen to everyone's phone calls. As soon as technology gets there, you can bet it'll be on the table.

ealloc• 13 years ago

It's also a straw man argument. Nobody ever claimed voice recordings were collected, all news sources were very clear about that. He's just distracting from the actual complaint, which is that all of the other data is collected.

mtgx• 13 years ago

Not to mention he is being very disingenuous because that "oversight" is extremely limited.

Congress passes these laws in a hurry, trying to limit public debate as much as possible. Judges get pressed into signing whatever NSA/FBI wants them to sign (there was no denied FISA "general warrant" denied in 2011 and 2012, and probably none before either), and of course the president can't be trusted with this. He's in charge of it all.

natrius4• 13 years ago

Surveys of the American people show that at least two of his three preconditions are correct. I think we're going to have some problems here.

baddox4• 13 years ago

"Separation of powers" is such a bogus concept. We've got three groups of people in different office buildings with almost exactly the same set of incentives, and it's hammered into our heads that this somehow will cause government to police itself. I doubt anyone who didn't repeatedly hear the praises for separation of powers in school throughout their childhood would think that is even a remotely effective plan.

justncase802• 13 years ago

And the superior alternative is what?

betterunix6• 13 years ago

Separation of powers is a good concept. The problem right now is that all three branches of government have been taken over by the right wing; there is little disagreement about these things. Separation of powers tends to work best when there is more than one opinion.

elwin• 13 years ago

Separation of powers was designed to prevent a few bad actors from seizing control of the whole system, as frequently happened in ancient republics. It's actually worked well for that purpose. It wasn't intended to defend against incentives affecting everyone who gets into any kind of office. No one foresaw that weakness.

People keep talking about separation of powers because it was once a good solution to a problem that no longer exists.

rayiner11• 13 years ago

What exactly is harmful about the TSA? Annoying and stupid, sure, but as far as I can tell nothing more sinister than that.

rdouble• 13 years ago

They've stolen $300 worth of stuff from my checked baggage and don't provide any means to get it back. There are dozens of similar stories. Not quite sinister, but beyond annoying and stupid.

cheald5• 13 years ago

You don't think that an agency that exists to condition the American people into the belief that a police state is "normal" is harmful?

betterunix6• 13 years ago

I mean, aside from being a corrupt organization that wastes tax dollars and has done almost nothing to keep us safe, I suppose they are fine.

epoxyhockey• 13 years ago

How about systematically irradiating 99% of the people that walk through their lines, without any independent study of the risks of such radiation? What happens when a terahertz antenna of unknown power is waved 2 feet in front of a male's genitals? 5 years of x-raying individuals, then taking all machines out of service shortly after the EU bans the machines? We will never know how many cancer cases arise from that program.

Not to mention the cost of running an agency that has not even once caught a terrorist.

jmadsen• 13 years ago

Excuse me if I have this muddled, but being a Top Secret program, wouldn't those Congressmen be bound to silence on the matter anyway?

Assuming you found one who bucked the trend and wasn't bankrupt of responsibility already, what could he actually do?

cm2012• 13 years ago

That was remarkably well spoken and reasonable.

droopybuns4• 13 years ago

In the words of Jamie Kilstein:

"Honestly democrats, does Obama have to fuck your girlfriend for you to get mad?"

betterunix6• 13 years ago

Standard government nonsense -- "There is oversight, this is for your safety, trust us, we respect your privacy, whoa look at the time I have to meet someone important bye!"

coldtea3• 13 years ago

And the reason that’s not how it works is because we’ve got congressional oversight and judicial oversight. And if people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress and don’t trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.

The people shouldn't have to "trust" anything and surely not blindly. As is the case here. The people should KNOW about everything that is being done, and judge for themselves.

If the people have to ..."trust" their government ("Don't worry, we know what's best and we'll do it, we wont bother you with details, just trust us"), then we already have a huge problem here.

The government should represent the will of the people, transparently, openly, and under constant oversight of the citizenry -- not just of judges and congress. Trust should only come into play in very small doses into this.

pkulak• 13 years ago

It's not really my _will_ that every single intelligence gathering operation be disclosed to the public. There's a lot of value in terrorists not knowing exactly what communication mediums to avoid at any moment. I think it's a good point that hundreds of directly elected people, representing the entire country, have known about this since it's inception. You can't just put every single government action to a vote, for several reasons.

coldtea3• 13 years ago

It's not really my _will_ that every single intelligence gathering operation be disclosed to the public. There's a lot of value in terrorists not knowing exactly what communication mediums to avoid at any moment.

Really? As if skilled terrorists chat their plans over the phone like casual people. They might get some young idiots, but nobody else. And those things are black swan events.

Furthermore, if every single government action was "disclosed to the public", there wouldn't even be more terrorists. People that get to be domestic terrorists would have less reasons to mistrust that open government. And the country wouldn't be made to invade, mess with other sovereign countries and get their people to seek revenge -- at least not without consensus.

kawera2• 13 years ago

You can't just put every single government action to a vote, for several reasons.

True, but we also know the moral/ethics of those elected (and how their campaigns are funded).

esrauch2• 13 years ago

I agree, but is there any reason why any actions taken 15 years ago shouldn't be matters of public record? It seems like secrecy on that time frame serves only to protect illegitimate actions.

encoderer2• 13 years ago

Here I disagree.

We are a republic. The proper mechanism here is to hold our representatives accountable. To me it seems absurd to say that "everybody should KNOW" about every intelligence program.

DasIch• 13 years ago

Accountable for what? A couple of days ago nobody even had a reason to complain.

lukejduncan4• 13 years ago

Why is it that politicians think that "not listening to your phone calls" is any different than tracking everything about your phone calls.

It reminds me of little kids fighting, getting in each others face and shouting "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!"

MartinCron4• 13 years ago

Why is it that politicians think that "not listening to your phone calls" is any different than tracking everything about your phone calls

Because there's a huge material difference, maybe?

esrauch2• 13 years ago

Who I am calling is the vast majority of what I want to be private, what I say to them is often obvious given who I am speaking to.

jlgreco3• 13 years ago

There is a "huge material difference" between touching your sibling and merely hovering your finger a millimeter over them.

lukejduncan4• 13 years ago

If I stretch my imagination I can see the argument, but I don't buy it (IMHO).

I think the spirit of why the privacy of the content of my conversation is important equally applies to any information about that conversation. If my conversation is privileged, why shouldn't my meta-data be? What's the difference?

If AT&T provided a service that cataloged and tagged my conversation for retrieval based on analysis of the content (and I opted into this) would that meta-data also be available to the government?

smackfu3• 13 years ago

They are still in a dumb phone world, where people use their phones to call other people.

anigbrowl7• 13 years ago

Because it is, in fact, significantly different; and the differences were articulated several decades ago by the Supreme Court. The two cases you should examine are Katz v. United States and Smith v. Maryland.

ivan_ah• 13 years ago

The modern version of that is "it's just the metadata."

I don't think legislation is the solution to this though. The spying is done because it //can// be done. By using a web application administered by somebody else you have implicitly given them your access logs.

The right solution is more along the lines of bringing the power home[1], or friendly neighborhood colocation locations. If the Internet has 1M servers, they can monitor transmission at the large ones. If the Internet had 1B servers on it, they wouldn't be able to handle.

[1] Talk by Eben Moglen about the Feedombox: http://youtu.be/gORNmfpD0ak?t=1m23s

rayiner11• 13 years ago

Because the metadata about your phone calls is AT&T's information about you not your information?

kawera2• 13 years ago

Now, with respect to the Internet and emails, this does not apply to U.S. citizens, and it does not apply to people living in the United States.

As for those living outside the US...

twoodfin• 13 years ago

I thought these programs were essentially constitutional when President Bush was in office, and I think they're essentially constitutional now (perhaps moreso with the added oversight of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008). But it's funny how much more interested President Obama is in making the distinction between purely domestic and foreign intercepts now that it's "his" program. I hope the brouhaha of the last few days has taught him some humility if nothing else.

ImprovedSilence• 13 years ago

> As for those living outside the US...

You should assume the US is recording all your calls. As well as China, England, Russia, Iran, France, and anyone else. The cyber world is spy v. spy. Large govt entities are collecting data on whoever/whatever they can. They are. Doesn't matter how benevolent you think they might be (or, even are). The big deal in the US is that it is spying on it's own citizens, which is a big big no no as far as the constitution and the mandate of the NSA are concerned.

don_draper2• 13 years ago

How would you identify and disrupt terrorist cells in America that were talking with known terrorists overseas?

I'm not trying to defend the government, but genuinely ask, 'How would you do it?'

smackfu3• 13 years ago

If you start by thinking you need to stop crimes before they happen, it opens the way up for much broader abuses.

When the government does want to be preventative, usually they just set up a fake terrorist who tries to recruit people into their fake plan, and then arrest those people when they agree. Of course, it's debatable whether they would have done anything at all without the fake terrorist, but it gets results!

anigbrowl7• 13 years ago

That's a pretty inaccurate mischaracterization of how those operations work. Typically the FBI doesn't arrest someone until they have planted or attempted to detonate the fake bomb.

Of course, it's debatable whether they would have done anything at all without the fake terrorist

Not often. If you read the transcripts of the recordings made in such cases (which are often attached to the indictment as evidence, or sometimes available in audio form), the sad fact is that some people run towards the honeypot at full speed. It's entrapment to encourage a reluctant or uncommitted person, but there are quite a few people who are eager to engage in such behavior.

noonespecial• 13 years ago

There comes a point where you just admit that you can't. Bad people do bad things and sometimes you can't stop them.

Burning the whole village to save it, cure worse than the disease, cutting noses to spite faces, and all that.

don_draper2• 13 years ago

In the age of nuclear weapons doing nothing is not acceptable.

anigbrowl7• 13 years ago

But sometimes you can, and the government is constitutionally mandated to defend the US and its people. You can't just cherry-pick the bits you like out of the Constitution while ignoring large chunks of it that you're not as comfortable with; for good or ill, it does invest the government with quite wide-ranging powers. congress is empowered to license mercenaries and assassins, for example, though its power to issue letters of marque and reprisal.

rayiner11• 13 years ago

How exactly is capturing CDR's "burning the village"?

sliverstorm4• 13 years ago

Potentially we can though. Why is our first reaction to hamstring our intelligence agencies and deny them information other entities doubtless already have? Why not instead work out how to provide them the information in a way that both protects our rights and enables them to do what we pay them to do?

manuelflara• 13 years ago

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

mikeash2• 13 years ago

Through regular old-fashioned police work, as was done in decades past.

hu_me• 13 years ago

It also mentions that the spying doesn't involve reading emails of US residents? So that means people outside US jurisdiction are being targeted?

dlitz2• 13 years ago

If voters in the US are just supposed to "trust" Congress and the executive, why even bother having elections?

encoderer2• 13 years ago

Seriously?

To elect somebody you trust.

This is a republic.

ihsw2• 13 years ago

Personally I reserve trust for people, but for governments (and other organizations) I have standards and expectations.

dlitz2• 13 years ago

OK, so you've elected representatives that you trust. Now what?

A major purpose of having new elections every 4 years (as opposed to life tenure) is to allow the people to periodically re-evaluate their trust decisions. What do you propose as the basis for that trust? Blind faith?

What's being suggested here is that elected representatives ought to be trusted by the public without access to the information necessary to verify that their trust has not been misplaced.

It's not like we're talking about specific information that was leaked. The mere fact that there exists such a broad surveillance program---authorized by Congress, the White House, and the FISC---was classified "top secret" and not scheduled to be declassified until decades later. The legally-enforced lack of accountability to the people for such a massive program undermines the legitimacy of a government that supposedly governs by the consent of the people.

InclinedPlane• 13 years ago

We already have an established process with established safeguards designed to strike an appropriate balance between public safety and personal liberty.

This isn't it.

This is so far from it as to make a mockery of the principles that lay at the very foundations of our nation.

tommis• 13 years ago

Now, with respect to the Internet and emails, this does not apply to U.S. citizens, and it does not apply to people living in the United States.

For EU and rest of the world: Every message (email/IM,anything..) trough gmail, hotmail, AOL or facebook is stored by US Gov. and used as they see fit.

ihsw2• 13 years ago

Your comment may be tongue in cheek however the concept of universal jurisdiction is a serious one that many have contemplated over the past century or so.

Why do you assume the 4th Amendment applies for foreign people? Is it because their data simply transits through the US (eg: to Facebook's servers)? Or is it because you expect the US Government to use that data to impose its laws and regulations selectively at its convenience (combating piracy)?

dragonwriter7• 13 years ago

Why do you assume the 4th Amendment applies for foreign people?

Because its a limitation on the power of the federal government that has no restrictions as to nationality of targets written in to it.

natrius4• 13 years ago

Let's talk a little about trusting the government to abide by the Constitution. The Constitution establishes the treaties we enter into as the law of the land. The Geneva Conventions are treaties that make torture illegal. The government has tortured people pretty recently.

We're pretty far beyond "trust, but verify" territory here.

anigbrowl7• 13 years ago

I question your minor premise, just for starters. I also think you're committing a fallacy of composition, since the government is not a monolithic entity.

Domenic_S• 13 years ago

Oh, this retort again. "HN/Reddit/the Government isn't just one person with one opinion you know!" And then someone replies yadda yadda scotsman yadda yadda and then we all kill ourselves.

Make an argument!

kjackson2012• 13 years ago

So we're expected to trust someone that has been lying to us for 5 years?

bguthrie• 13 years ago

"Do you welcome the leak, sir? Do you welcome the leak if you welcome the debate?"

jervisfm• 13 years ago

Here is an interesting quote from his remarks that I think could actually be a worthwhile argument that gives some indication that there is serious concern to ensure that the systems are not abused.

And by the way, with respect to my concerns about privacy issues, I will leave this office at some point, sometime in the last — next 3 1/2 years, and after that, I will be a private citizen. And I suspect that, you know, on — on a list of people who might be targeted, you know, so that somebody could read their emails or — or listen to their phone calls, I’d probably be pretty high on that list. So it’s not as if I don’t have a personal interest in making sure my privacy is protected.

dcraw• 13 years ago

He will be escorted by the Secret Service, so he's not going to have a lot of privacy from the federal government either way.

aetimmes• 13 years ago

Former President Obama would also have far more power than John Q. Citizen to make his metadata "disappear" if need be. I don't particularly buy this argument.

A__MJ• 13 years ago

I would interpret that as Obama casting himself in the position of an average citizen to garner a feeling of connection and trust.

I'm taking a wild guess, but I doubt that presidents get bumped down to "average dude" status by intelligence agencies after they leave office.

sliverstorm4• 13 years ago

I doubt that presidents get bumped down to "average dude" status by intelligence agencies after they leave office.

Isn't that exactly his point? After he leaves office, he will be very high on "List of people to snoop"?

Nelson69• 13 years ago

The thing is, you don't know about the abuse until its too late. Plus he's retired at the time, he'll do some 'consulting' and maybe speak for a lot of money but he'll have his security detail and he's done.

Kind of the ultimate abuse would be some future presidential candidate's records being gone through and perhaps in his youth he had some questionable friends or something. Our politics and politicians are not nearly civil enough to have these kinds of tools and information available. It's basically just a hope and a wish that the NSA folks with access take their jobs seriously and take the nation's security seriously and that they are otherwise trustworthy about it. Not long after 9/11, anthrax, anthrax that originated in a top secret US defense lab was sent to politicians in DC... In Fort Hood Texas, a member of the US military, a guy they vetted and indoctrinated, went through their background checks and they accepted shot up a bunch of people.. These were trusted people with trusted access.

The knives are already out, should we shut this stuff down, as soon as there is another terrorist anything the other side will use it for political gain. How do you undo it?

cinquemb• 13 years ago

don't trust the executive branch?: √

don't trust Congress?: √

don't trust what is called "due process and rule of law"?: √

I wonder what problems he thinks people will cause? Petitions are ignored. Protests are relegated to "Free speech zones". People are taking on more debt than ever to live the "American Dream". Sounds like they have everything in control to me…

medde3• 13 years ago

we've got a problem... stop funding the NSA, TSA, etc...

scrabble• 13 years ago

"...represent only small encroachments of people’s privacy."

This is pretty much how it starts. First the people accept small encroachments, then they're asked to accept slightly larger encroachments.

Eventually there is no privacy left.

droopybuns4• 13 years ago

"Now, let — let me take the two issues separately. When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That’s not what this program’s about. As was indicated, what the intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. If these folks — if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they’ve got to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation. So I want to be very clear. Some of the hype that we’ve been hearing over the last day or so — nobody’s listening to the content of people’s phone calls."

So, this is about CDRs- Call Detail Records. They are the atomic unit of all mobile telecommunications. There's no billing, no provisioning of data or anything without them. These are the most fundamental log files of all your mobile activity. They are in a sense, the primary key needed to enumerate all of your transactions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_detail_record

An excruciating level of detail on what a CDR can include can be found here:

http://downloads.avaya.com/css/P8/documents/100096784

Our president is using weasel words. Yes, obtaining CDRs isn't the same as obtaining your texts or your voicemail, but once you have them, you have everything you need for obtaining the content through subpoena. So, from here, we jump to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iog5IeEjR00

"We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. Its not necessarily something that the FBI's going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation or the questioning of her."

Our political leaders are not worth defending any more. The whole system is corrupt. Everyone in office needs to be ejected, followed by the comprehensive removal of non-political government leadership. This country has beached itself.

rayiner11• 13 years ago

Yes, obtaining CDRs isn't the same as obtaining your texts or your voicemail, but once you have them, you have everything you need for obtaining the content through subpoena.

Hint: it's always been possible to get nearly any piece of information with a subpoena or a warrant. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches not searches period. And a subpoena or a warrant is by definition a reasonable search.

There is nothing weasel-y about this language.

benmmurphy2• 13 years ago

I believe a big issue he is raising is the ability to go back in time and wiretap your phone before the subpoena has been issued.

droopybuns4• 13 years ago

"nobody's listening to your calls" != "nobody's recording your calls".

flyt• 13 years ago

If you eject every person from the government at once then the only ones left behind will be the lobbyists to influence their replacements, and without any tenure or political clout for those new people to resist.

coley• 13 years ago

"They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. If these folks — if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they’ve got to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation."

So if you're not collecting names, whose name goes on the warrant once suspicious is aroused?

medde3• 13 years ago

they are getting the data from different sources to not look too suspicious

qwerta• 13 years ago

I do not get why people are not using PGP more. It takes 10 minutes to setup your email client and put public certificate on web. It is just question of time until government starts using this data for "other dangerous stuff" such as tax evasion and not paying parking tickets.

sliverstorm4• 13 years ago

People have not yet accepted the fact that in a digital age, there will always be somebody snooping your information. They still believe with enough laws, it can be stopped.

waterphone• 13 years ago

A lot of people get excited and set it up, then realize there's no one else they know who is willing to use it, rendering it pointless.

mindstab• 13 years ago

Obama: "And I think it’s interesting that there are some folks on the left, but also some folks on the right who are now worried about it who weren’t very worried about it when it was a Republican president. I think that’s good that we’re having this discussion."

boi_v2• 13 years ago

The logical fallacies in his speech are remarkable.

platypii• 13 years ago

My problem with his remarks was that he was addressing the wrong issue. He was defending the need to access this data without a warrant. He then repeatedly stated that he welcomed the discussion.

But how can a national discussion take place about a secret program??

He never addressed this issue of why the program needs to be secret in the first place.

benmmurphy2• 13 years ago

Not sure why Obama thinks he would be high on the list of people this program would abuse. Why would the people running the program punish someone that supported the program? The innocent people that have to fear from this program are the people currently opposing the surveillance state. If you are in a position of power either in private industry or the government and are not co-operating with NSLs or other surveillance requests then you are high on the list.

medde3• 13 years ago

obama - bush = 0

suredo2• 13 years ago

with great powers comes great responsibilities.... and I thought he could handle it...

Achshar• 13 years ago

What the fuck is the "we are not reading emails of any US citizen" bullshit. I am not a US citizen, so you are reading my emails? That is even more fucked up. For one second forget about US citizens and think about all the other people in the world. I don't care what US government does to it's people, it's your government after all. But what I do care is what it does to data of others (including myself), because it has no right to any of that data. So someone get the questions answered.

suredo2• 13 years ago

what is the reason for this being classified? so that people don't stop using Verizon?

rglover• 13 years ago

http://youtu.be/cGKEkI8IV2o?t=7m43s

gcb0• 13 years ago

<quote>Obama: number one, to keep the American people safe; and number two, to uphold the Constitution.</quote>

isn't that wrong order or priorities exactly what the constitution should protect us from?

notmarkus• 13 years ago

It opens with "all of your duly elected officials have been aware of this program for years and have consistently voted to maintain it."

Yes, that makes it so much better.

jlarocco• 13 years ago

It's hard to believe anything the government says about this because a month ago they would have denied anything was being done at all.

Obama’s Remarks on NSA Controversy

Related Stories